Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › Senate votes to reject the Dirty Air Act
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Senate votes to reject the Dirty Air Act

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

The Senate just voted down Lisa Murkowski's Dirty Air Act. The Dirty Air Act would have gutted the Clean Air Act by removing the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions, as well as delaying more efficient fuel economy standards for at least one year, among other negative impacts.


So that's the good news.  The bad news is in the vote tally.  The resolution was expected to fail, and even if it had miraculously passed, it would then have had to pass the House.  And if that miraculously happened, President Obama would have vetoed it.  So the vote was more of an indicator of how the various Senators are feeling about carbon regulation and climate legislation.


The results aren't good.  Every single Republican voted for the motion, even the supposed moderates like Snowe, Collins, and Brown.  As did 6 of the more 'moderate' Democrats, most of which also happen to receive heavy fundraising from fossil fuel industries.  Based on the official vote tally, the Dems to vote for the bill were


Bayh (D-IN)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Nelson (D-NE)

Pryor (D-AR)

Rockefeller (D-WV)


So it's good that the resolution was shot down immediately, but the vote tally does not spell good news for carbon and climate legislation.

post #2 of 9
While I don't support everything in the bill, I DO support taking power away from the EPA. It's one thing to have elected officials in Congress vote for carbon regulation; it's an entirely different thing to give unelected bureaocrats the power to impose costly regulations.

Also, I somehow thought that seven democrats voted for the bill.
post #3 of 9

No, remember there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate.


Can't say I agree with you.  It's the EPA's job to regulate environmental pollutants.  Under the Clean Air Acts, greenhouse gases qualify, as the US Supreme Court ruled in EPA vs. Massachussetts.


I agree that ideally, Congress would pass legislation to regulate carbon, for example with a cap and trade system.  This is an economically preferable solution to EPA regulation.  However, there's certainly nothing fundamentally wrong with the EPA regulating greenhouse gases.

post #4 of 9

Sadly, our system of government leaves a lot to be desired.  Don't take me incorrectly; I love my country (USA) passionately.  However, PACs exercise too much control over the people we send to Washington.  It seems that the only way to correct this is to limit corporate contributions to sitting senators and congressmen and those aspiring to hold those offices.  Big fat chance for those corrections to be made by the people who are favored by those monies.


We have so many problems here and the bureaucracy exists to make itself persist without change.  ARGH!!!!  We see this with the Gulf oil spill.  Ordinary people came out and started building the dunes to keep the oil out of the marshes, because the bureaucrats kept the issue mired in obscure rules and regulations and many not so applicable to the dire situation presented.

post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 

Agreed.  The other bad news here is that Sen Rockefeller (a Democrat, from coal-heavy West Viriginia) is now taking up the Dirty Air Act cause.  He's got a proposal to delay EPA greenhouse gas regulations for 2 years, rather than permanently, so it will be harder to block.  Sen. Reid agreed to take up this resolution sometime this year.  President Obama hasn't yet said he'll veto it if it makes it to his desk, but he damn well better do so after failing to substantively support the climate bill.

post #6 of 9

Dana do you think this process has anything to do with government decisions

post #7 of 9
Thread Starter 

International bribery?  I think it has more to do with where they're getting campaign funding from - American lobbyists.  For example, I'm sure Jay Rockefeller gets a ton of campaign contributions from the coal industry, being from West Virginia.

post #8 of 9

Dana if a dirty air act was introduced what reg's would be placed on air traffic? their emissions are full of lead and copper especially jets What cocktail of gases are formed when these super heated emissions mix with other atmospheric gases?

post #9 of 9
Thread Starter 

The Dirty Air Act would just take away the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  It wouldn't have any impact on air traffic.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: News & Policy
Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › Senate votes to reject the Dirty Air Act